<span>By November 1818, the Central Powers were close to finished and 10 million lives were lost. Nations were created and reorganized during the war, and those agreeing to a truce, and signing the peace treaty would have to pay reparations. Many weren't prepared to do that.</span>
<span>The book entitled Wealth of Nations was published by Adam Smith to promote the ideals of capitalism and free enterprise in the year 1776. Smith believed that capitalism would ultimately promote a more prosperous and growing economic standing for those who could implement it properly.</span>
Explanation:
The Dust Bowl was caused by several economic and agricultural factors, including federal land policies, changes in regional weather, farm economics and other cultural factors. After the Civil War, a series of federal land acts coaxed pioneers westward by incentivizing farming in the Great Plains.
The Homestead Act of 1862, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land, was followed by the Kinkaid Act of 1904 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. These acts led to a massive influx of new and inexperienced farmers across the Great Plains.
The positive impact of British colonialism in India is related to democracy in the country, which was instituted through British investment in Indian institutions such as courts and universities.
The negative impacts are related to the use of violence by British colonists throughout colonization.
<h3>British India</h3>
It corresponds to the period from 1757 to 1857, in which India was dominated by the British empire, which established colonialism in the country by establishing trading posts and exploiting resources.
Therefore, the positive and negative impacts of colonialism in India are related to the governance system of the British, which despite instituting democratic systems, also used violence and war to increase its control.
Find out more information about British India here:
brainly.com/question/873957
This depends on ideals and opinions but from my point of view it is not a fair and democratic way of selecting the president due to the fact that the citizens of this country have no real say in who is president. Therefore it is not democratic. Fair? No because the electoral college Can have biases just like any other human and they are not the majority. This goes hand in hand with the democracy question. If I was to be democratic. The citizens should cancel out what the electoral college says.
Now I’m the side of the reasoning as to why the electoral college exists. It’s understandable. Everyone is not trustable enough to decide the fate of the country. Overall it is not fair and democratic.
